Why No-Mod?

[ethan Renfold]

---

Penny Patton wrote:

---

I am specifically talking about content creators who sell their content as no-mod due to the mistaken beliefs described above, or due to the common practice of selling items such as furniture no-copy for no other reason than to

force users 

to buy

multiple copies.

---

Can you tell me how to set things for sale in such a way that it would force users to buy? I would like to try that. :smileytongue:

[HarrisonMcKenzie]

>However, it is my belief that many people choose to release no-mod due to some fundamental misunderstandings with regards to how SL works (see anyone who claims they only release no-mod to protect their content)...

 

I'm not sure how protecting your art is a misunderstanding of how SL works. I don't have modify permissions on my clothes because I don't want the user changing the colour. I spend a lot of time making my textures, and I don't want them changing the appearance of it because it is more likely to make my product look poorly made. And since I sell mostly clothes, you can't resize or modify them anyways. The only thing that modify permissions would do is allow for renaming and inserting scripts, but I can't see people scripting a shirt in a meaningful fashion.

 

Now, if I am selling furniture, I will absolutely do so with modify permissions, since the value, options, and more private use outweigh my concerns about recolouring. I personally do not buy no-mod furniture because I want control over scripting and size. The same is true with a character accessory; modify permissions actually add something to the product. But when those permissions don't add anything and can only take away from the product, I see no reason to use them.

 

So no, I am not misunderstanding how SL works. I know exactly what I'm selling and why.

[Pamela Galli]

---

ethan Renfold wrote:

---

Penny Patton wrote:

---

I am specifically talking about content creators who sell their content as no-mod due to the mistaken beliefs described above, or due to the common practice of selling items such as furniture no-copy for no other reason than to

force users 

to buy

multiple copies.

---

Can you tell me how to set things for sale in such a way that it would

force

 users to buy? I would like to try that. :smileytongue:

---

I think this kind of language betrays a fundamental underlying failure to understand that the free market doesn't "force" anyone to buy anything. It really doesn't matter what choices a merchant makes, as long as everyone is free to not buy. That might not be true if someone has a monopoly on some essential product, but there are no essential products in SL. 

[Penny Patton]

---

HarrisonMcKenzie wrote:

 

I'm not sure how protecting your art is a misunderstanding of how SL works. I don't have modify permissions on my clothes because I don't want the user changing the colour. I spend a lot of time making my textures, and I don't want them changing the appearance of it because it is more likely to make my product look poorly made. 

---

Yet again, I was referring to those who believe no-mod perms somehow protect against content theft or believe items must be no-mod for their contente to be no-mod as well as other misconceptions.

Protecting your work from your customers' is a whole other can of worms. Modded work, no matter how atrocious, has never, ever, reflected poorly on the original creator in the history of the world, let alone SL. That's not about to change now.

---

HarrisonMcKenzie wrote:

And since I sell mostly clothes, you can't resize or modify them anyways. The only thing that modify permissions would do is allow for renaming and inserting scripts, but I can't see people scripting a shirt in a meaningful fashion.

---

There's some great examples earlier in the thread, but here's one for you. I use a mesh body and wear mesh clothes. If I am topless and want to put on a shirt I may have to change multiple items in addition to adding the shirt.

 

• I will definitely have to remove my mesh body's nipples, can't have them poking through the shirt!
• I will almost definitely have to change my shape. Boobs squish when you shove them into a frabric covering!
• I will likely have to change my physics. Afterall, boobs hang differently and bounce less when restrained.
• I may have to change the alpha masking settings on my mesh body so bits don't clip through the shirt.

That can become awfully tedious if one is frequently changing clothes, especially if multiple clothing items may have similar steps to them. My solution is to use RLV. I put a script inside the shirt and set up some RLV folders with the shape, physics, body with correct alpha settings, and other items that may need to be added/removed when that shirt is worn. Now I simple "add" the shirt and everything else changes automatically. A feature only available to moddable clothing! I cannot overstate just how much this adds to my SL experience. I've integrated it into every piece of clothing that would benefit from it and it's it has taken all of the hassle out of changing outfits in SL.

 That's just one example. I do a lot more to mod my clothing. Frequently this involves retexturing to fix optimization issues the original creator did not think of, such as when they put a 1024x1024 texture on a tiny button or a jacket's zipper or some other small, easily retextured even without a UV map, detail where you literally cannot zoom in close enough for such a high-res texture to make a noticable difference in the appearance. I value my framerates.

---

HarrisonMcKenzie wrote:

Now, if I am selling furniture, I will absolutely do so with modify permissions, since the value, options, and more private use outweigh my concerns about recolouring. I personally do not buy no-mod furniture because I want control over scripting and size. The same is true with a character accessory; modify permissions actually add something to the product. But when those permissions don't add anything and can only take away from the product, I see no reason to use them.

 

---

I hope, then, that I've been able to illustrate that just because you did not think of a situation where mod perms add to the product does not mean such a situation does not exist.

[Penny Patton]

---

ethan Renfold wrote:

Can you tell me how to set things for sale in such a way that it would

force

 users to buy? I would like to try that. :smileytongue:

---

I'm relatively confident that you're joking, but I would hope that my meaning was clear. There are content creators who sell furniture no-mod because they want you to have to buy multiple copies if you want to place more than one copy of that furniture on your land.

Yes, you're free to pass on shopping with them at all, and I would encourage people to do so, but that is the intent of the seller.

 

---

Pamela Galli wrote:

I think this kind of language betrays a fundamental underlying failure to understand that the free market doesn't "force" anyone to buy anything. It really doesn't matter what choices a merchant makes, as long as everyone is free to not buy. That might not be true if someone has a monopoly on some essential product, but there are no essential products in SL. 

---

I agree. No single merchange has a stranglehold over any SL market, but overall trends can affect the market. Right now it's getting more and more difficult to find moddable mesh bodies and clothing, so customer options are restricted. Which, again, is why I think this is a topic worth discussing so that content creators and customers alike can make informed decisions.

 

[HarrisonMcKenzie]

>I hope, then, that I've been able to illustrate that just because you did not think of a situation where mod perms add to the product does not mean such a situation does not exist.

Unfortunately, you haven't. The issues you described only seem to apply to you and not my store's demographic. I make kids clothing, so issues like **bleep**-slips and breast physics really aren't a concern for me. If someone really, truly did have a burning issue that required modify permissions, all they have to do is message me for custom work, which I'll probably provide for free. But my choice is that I do not want you retexturing or tinting my clothes because I'm not just selling a blank template; my clothes stand out because of the care I give to the texture details, not just design. That you don't like that, frankly, doesn't bother me because the issues you have with your avatar are not those of my customer. If me declaring my creator rights over my work bothers you so much that you would boycott my store, that doesn't really concern me.

[Paul Hexem]

You're getting awfully riled up over something that you're saying doesn't concern you.

Why are you so upset about Penny educating people with correct information? If you're afraid it's going to hurt your business model, maybe you need a new business model.

[Pussycat Catnap]

---

HarrisonMcKenzie wrote:

>

I hope, then, that I've been able to illustrate that just because you did not think of a situation where mod perms add to the product does not mean such a situation does not exist.

Unfortunately, you haven't. The issues you described only seem to apply to you and not my store's demographic. I make kids clothing, so issues like **bleep**-slips and breast physics really aren't a concern for me.

---

That's an interesting assumption because 2 or 3 years back I turned one of my alts in a child avatar for a few months.

I more or less gave up BECAUSE of nipple-slip issues.

Since the items I was working with were no-mod I couldn't fix textures. There were no African skins in a dark enough skin tone, so I used an adult skin, and that meant it came with shadows/highlights for the breast, as well as nipples.

Of course skins have never really been mod in SL, so this is not an exact parallel - but it makes a point: a customer often needs something close to what is out there, but not on target.

 But that did limit clothing options a LOT. I had to find things that would 100% cover the shadow areas, top and bottom - because they just looked 'funny'. Basically she had to wear at the shortest t-shirts with a very high neckline and mid-thgh shorts. No bathing suits, not even conservatively-cut ones.

 

A lot of clothing also came with designs that were almost what I desired, but not really there. In the end I just transitioned that avatar back to an adult, as I have a supply of Mod-perms things for her there.

 

I cannot think of a single market were a customer benefits from no-mod.

So if you sell no-mod, and someone else sells mod - unless your product is vastly superior, and that is true really ONLY for my mesh body itself, the mod-seller is getting my money.

 

 

[HarrisonMcKenzie]

You are aware that disagreeing with someone and getting upset are two different things, right? Adding modify permissions adds nothing to my business. All it means is turning over my rights as an artist. I don't want to do that so I don't. And as far as I can tell, the entire kid clothing market also sells with no-mod, so the argument that my business will hurt if someone else sells with those permissions isn't a valid one. I made my informed choice. Voicing that choice in a discussion isn't me getting upset, nor am I afraid that my business will suffer. That's you getting upset over my choice, not be being upset over it.

[Bitsy Buccaneer]

---

HarrisonMcKenzie wrote:

And as far as I can tell, the entire kid clothing market also sells with no-mod, so the argument that my business will hurt if someone else sells with those permissions isn't a valid one.

---

Pussycat is telling you that the ENTIRE kids' clothing market lost her alt as a customer because something she needed wasn't available. Not just you, or your friend, or someone else; the entire market.

This will be invisible to you and the rest of the kids' clothing market because it's not like she (and others in a similar-ish situation) would have bought lots of things from you and stopped. They never would have bought much in the first place, if anything. The only way you guys would know is if she told you and you actually listened to what she was saying.

She's told you now, btw. Did you listen?

Go back and reread the last line of Penny's reply to you above: "I hope, then, that I've been able to illustrate that just because you did not think of a situation where mod perms add to the product does not mean such a situation does not exist."

The examples she gave you of her many uses for mod rights in clothing are ILLUSTRATIONS of the principle. Pussycat gave yet another example, another illustration of how a market dominated by no-mod makes it very hard to impossible for customers and potential customers to do something slightly different.

I will add in a third consideration: How you see your creations on your computer with your graphics card is not neccessarily how I will see them on mine. And that's before we get into things like graphics settings, shadows and windlight.

These are all things which tend to change. People get new computers, often better but sometimes less like a switch to a laptop for pratical reasons. SL adds new shiny.... like shadows and windlight. Maybe in a few years materials will be so prevalent anything without it looks flat, we've seen that sort of thing happen with changes before. Moddable items can be adapted to the changing tech and new expectations. Non-mods will start to look old and tired.

And one more, since you want illustrations of the principle which are very specific to your particular market. Ever set your mesh t-shirt to full bright or glow because it looks really cool at midnight settings and it entertains you to go around SL for a while that way? You can't if it's no-mod. The kid in me loves doing daft things like that, for all that my av is ostensibly an adult.

Finding out that the kids' clothing market will restrict my creativity in that way means I won't be starting a kid avatar. Every winter I find my work shifting towards fun, silly and colourful things. This winter's project is something for the young at heart and I had thought a kid avatar might be fun, something new and also foster that. Now I'm thinking why take on the limitations of that market when I can stay a grown-up av and have more fun? Basically you guys have lost another not-yet customer. But hey sincere thanks for the warning, better to find out now before I bought the body. (It wouldn't have occurred to me to check the entire market to see if I could get mod clothes for it. I would have just kept looking, thinking it had to be out there somewhere.)

Are you starting to understand the principle yet? Just because you haven't thought of uses or reasons for mod doesn't mean they don't exist.

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

HarrisonMcKenzie wrote:

You are aware that disagreeing with someone and getting upset are two different things, right? Adding modify permissions adds nothing to my business. All it means is turning over my rights as an artist. I don't want to do that so I don't. And as far as I can tell, the entire kid clothing market also sells with no-mod, so the argument that my business will hurt if someone else sells with those permissions isn't a valid one. I made my informed choice. Voicing that choice in a discussion isn't me getting upset, nor am I afraid that my business will suffer. That's you getting upset over my choice, not be being upset over it.

---

Okay, I think I see the basic problem. You can either be an artist, in which case you're doing things essentially for yourself and are selling as a sideline on your terms; or you can be in business, in which case you're servicing customers in order to turn a profit. This thread is largely about those who are running a business.

Incidentally, Loki Eliot sells mod.

 

[Pamela Galli]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

HarrisonMcKenzie wrote:

You are aware that disagreeing with someone and getting upset are two different things, right? Adding modify permissions adds nothing to my business. All it means is turning over my rights as an artist. I don't want to do that so I don't. And as far as I can tell, the entire kid clothing market also sells with no-mod, so the argument that my business will hurt if someone else sells with those permissions isn't a valid one. I made my informed choice. Voicing that choice in a discussion isn't me getting upset, nor am I afraid that my business will suffer. That's you getting upset over my choice, not be being upset over it.

---

Okay, I think I see the basic problem. You can either be an

artist

, in which case you're doing things essentially for yourself and are selling as a sideline on your terms;

or

you can be

in business

, in which case you're servicing customers in order to turn a profit. This thread is largely about those who are running a business.

Incidentally, Loki Eliot sells mod.

 

---

Plenty of artists sell their work, some for quite a lot of money. Including artists that make what they like themselves without much regard to what anyone else thinks. 

 

The bottom line: How a creator chooses to create is nobody's business but his own. You are not in fact forced to buy anything from anyone. 

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Pamela Galli wrote:

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

HarrisonMcKenzie wrote:

You are aware that disagreeing with someone and getting upset are two different things, right? Adding modify permissions adds nothing to my business. All it means is turning over my rights as an artist. I don't want to do that so I don't. And as far as I can tell, the entire kid clothing market also sells with no-mod, so the argument that my business will hurt if someone else sells with those permissions isn't a valid one. I made my informed choice. Voicing that choice in a discussion isn't me getting upset, nor am I afraid that my business will suffer. That's you getting upset over my choice, not be being upset over it.

---

Okay, I think I see the basic problem. You can either be an

artist

, in which case you're doing things essentially for yourself and are selling as a sideline on your terms;

or

you can be

in business

, in which case you're servicing customers in order to turn a profit. This thread is largely about those who are running a business.

Incidentally, Loki Eliot sells mod.

 

---

Plenty of artists sell their work, some for quite a lot of money.

Including artists that make what they like themselves without much regard to what anyone else thinks. 

---

Yes - that's what I said. But are they in business?

[Pamela Galli]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Pamela Galli wrote:

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

HarrisonMcKenzie wrote:

You are aware that disagreeing with someone and getting upset are two different things, right? Adding modify permissions adds nothing to my business. All it means is turning over my rights as an artist. I don't want to do that so I don't. And as far as I can tell, the entire kid clothing market also sells with no-mod, so the argument that my business will hurt if someone else sells with those permissions isn't a valid one. I made my informed choice. Voicing that choice in a discussion isn't me getting upset, nor am I afraid that my business will suffer. That's you getting upset over my choice, not be being upset over it.

---

Okay, I think I see the basic problem. You can either be an

artist

, in which case you're doing things essentially for yourself and are selling as a sideline on your terms;

or

you can be

in business

, in which case you're servicing customers in order to turn a profit. This thread is largely about those who are running a business.

Incidentally, Loki Eliot sells mod.

 

---

Plenty of artists sell their work, some for quite a lot of money.

Including artists that make what they like themselves without much regard to what anyone else thinks. 

---

Yes - that's what I said. But are they

in business

?

---

Well Teresa I suppose it depends on how you define "in business" -- I would say someone who makes and sells things is in some sense "in business" -- but in any case, whatever else an artist may do in addition to creating art, he is still an artist. It is certainly not the either / or proposition you describe.

[Pussycat Catnap]

This little idea came from a very biased perspective, but I've always liked it...

I began my second attempt at a university education (after getting out of the military), in graphic design school. One of my first professors said, roughly... that artists make things for themselves and their own inner needs. Graphic designs make things for a client and a message.

One of these perspectives is maker-centric, the other is consumer-centric.

I'm seeing the same thing in all of this discussion about mod perms.

The person who thinks first of the customer's interests makes mod. You could say this person is 'altruistic' OR you could say they're mercenary.

The person who thinks of their own interests might make mod or no-mod. You could say this person is artistic OR you could say they are selfish.

- That idea came from a design professional, so of course it was phrased in a light that made her side of things look better, and George Lakoff could tell you why I struggle with language that flips the perspective.

And a lot of this comes down to your perspective.

 

But I, in SL, am primarily a consumer - so I know where I want to put my money. A content producer might get a lot of money from others, but do they also want my money as well?

[Pussycat Catnap]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

Incidentally, Loki Eliot sells mod.

---

Back when I was attempting the child avatar, almost all of the things I got that DID work for her came from Loki Eliot and were boys clothes. They didn't look right because I wanted girl's outfits - but they were at least modable to be closer to my desired look.

I have a few buildings and things from him as well - because they were mod, I knew I could fix any issues I needed to to fit the theme of my land.

Loki is basically an easy sell for me. I haven't bought much from him, but he pops up on 'check that brand' list a lot.

[Pamela Galli]

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

This little idea came from a very biased perspective, but I've always liked it...

I began my second attempt at a university education (after getting out of the military), in graphic design school. One of my first professors said, roughly... that artists make things for themselves and their own inner needs. Graphic designs make things for a client and a message.

One of these perspectives is maker-centric, the other is consumer-centric.

I'm seeing the same thing in all of this discussion about mod perms.

The person who thinks first of the customer's interests makes mod. You could say this person is 'altruistic' OR you could say they're mercenary.

The person who thinks of their own interests might make mod or no-mod. You could say this person is artistic OR you could say they are selfish.

- That idea came from a design professional, so of course it was phrased in a light that made her side of things look better, and George Lakoff could tell you why I struggle with language that flips the perspective.

And a lot of this comes down to your perspective.

 

But I, in SL, am primarily a consumer - so I know where I want to put my money. A content producer might get a lot of money from others, but do they also want my money as well?

---

While I make a living selling my stuff in SL, my approach has always been to believe that if I like something, someone else will like it, too. So I make what I like. That, if anything, has been the key to whatever success I have had.

That doesn't mean I don't hope that others will like what I like, because I do. But the few times I have tried to make something because I tried to guess what others would like instead of sticking with what I liked, and having a visceral sense of that, the result was crap. 

It does not seem to be an either/or thing. 

[Bitsy Buccaneer]

Tagging onto Pamela's post here because I agree with it and there's something I want to throw in to the conversation. Like her, I don't accept the either/or mindset.

Part of this is because of the special nature of virtual worlds. If a customer modifies a creation, even perhaps going so far as to make obvious changes to textures, the original art is not lost. It might have become something else in that specific iteration, but the original art probably still exists in several other places in SL. (Like the customer's inventory if it's copy. :matte-motes-smile:)

So a creator can pour her heart and soul into a piece and then let it out into the world without her artistry being compromised. It's not like RL where there is only one original.

Mod make sense both artistically and business-wise, for others and for one's self. It isn't either/or.

[Codex Alpha]

Perhaps those that only go to the IKEA catalogue or 'vogue' furniture and fashion sites, who's bulk of inventory is made up of copied 'reference image' replicas of work not concieved on their own, could be so flippant and easy going with their creations.

Some of us, thumbnail, sketch, concept, construct, create textures, breathe life into with scripts and strive to create unique, amazing items never before seen in SL. We CARE about our creations and where they end up, and we CARE that they are looked upon as TOP KNOTCH. We also appreciate other creators who are also innovative and creative and unique, mod/copy or not...

The octopus table was fine the way it was. No copy, no mod... NO PROBLEM.

You want a 'business'? Sell items that are ripoffs of RL items.. just replicate everything and sell them as your own, and think you are contributing to SL.. No wonder some can have 1000's of dresses and shoes in their stores - THEY'RE NOT THEIRS, and since the designs really aren't there, they can let their meshes go, to be bastardized and reused - then come and decry unique creators because they market differently (and aren't always about the freaking $$$$$$$$$$$$ all the time)...

the $$$$$$$$$$. God I hate the $$$$$$$$$$$$$. It's always about the $$$$$$$$$$ to many isn't it?

But guess what? Some of us must really piss you off, some of us original types.. Cuz guess what, we make money too.. In the end we win because we create the things YOU'll copy later. Chew on that. Slow and steady and unique wins the race.

(Okay rant over: responses below)

---

Penny Patton wrote:

There are content creators who sell furniture no-mod because they want you to have to buy multiple copies if you want to place more than one copy of that furniture on your land.

Yes, you're free to pass on shopping with them at all, and I would encourage people to do so, but that is the intent of the seller.

 

---

Once again you ignored other reasons, not one was ever presented the desire to make customers buy multiple copies. I can safely say you don't read (or probably can't comprehend) and too eager to condescendingly respond and assume a poster's temperament instead of arguing points instead.

There was a legitimate, marketing strategy (with examples) I posted as to why a merchant may want no mod on an item, where is your response to this? All you did is repost your opinion again, without addressing other points made.

---

Gadget Portal wrote:

You're getting awfully riled up over something that you're saying doesn't concern you.

Why are you so upset about Penny educating people with correct information? If you're afraid it's going to hurt your business model, maybe you need a new business model.

---

Personal attack on Riley. Doesn't address any points he/she made.

---

HarrisonMcKenzie wrote:

You are aware that disagreeing with someone and getting upset are two different things, right?

Adding modify permissions adds nothing to my business. All it means is turning over my rights as an artist.

I don't want to do that so I don't. And as far as I can tell, the entire kid clothing market also sells with no-mod, so the argument that my business will hurt if someone else sells with those permissions isn't a valid one. I made my informed choice. Voicing that choice in a discussion isn't me getting upset, nor am I afraid that my business will suffer. That's you getting upset over my choice, not be being upset over it.

---

That's exactly what the hell is being proposed. Penny wants the ability to purchase your original sketched, concepted, constructed and textured mesh for a free end-use, including retexturing and renaming, adding to her own custom builds on her sim so she can make money from it. That is not the reason I started creating in SL, it was for my fellow and average SL'ers to use on their own lands and enjoy, and they  make stuff for me to enjoy. Read her blog to see what end use she would have for YOUR creations.

She also hasn't addressed any points made about why creators should bother spending so much time on textures, materials, or even design if the end use would amount to retexturing, recoloring, rescripting, deconstruction/reconstruction/spare parts.. Why are any of us even uploading anything other than a UV unwrapped white mesh then?

[Codex Alpha]

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

The person who thinks first of the customer's interests makes mod. You could say this person is 'altruistic' OR you could say they're mercenary.

The person who thinks of their own interests might make mod or no-mod. You could say this person is artistic OR you could say they are selfish.

---

Screw your design professionals. It's an opinion, it doesn't make it fact just because some professor said it. I also don't make the mistake of assuming what my customers want or don't want. I probably care about the end customer by utilizing different permissions to enhance the experience of the product. If that experience demands that the product will stay intact, then it will. Just as I realize my opinion on matters isn't going to reflect everyone else's I also respect people expect different things.. the market will decide what people want. As an artist, I have a vision for what I want to produce, how it will be presented, how it will act and be interacted with, and noone is going to make me undermine it. If people don't want to experience the relatively few products I will put out in the next year, and are worried about permissions, they're going to miss out. A true fellow artist would understand this.

[Paul Hexem]

You're getting awfully salty about this whole thing.

It's like I said... If it's that upsetting to lose sales because people are learning the truth, maybe there's something wrong with your business model.

And if you're not losing sales, and selling no mod is working fine for you, then why all the crying?

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

entity0x wrote:

Perhaps

those that only go to the IKEA catalogue or 'vogue' furniture and fashion sites, who's bulk of inventory is made up of copied 'reference image' replicas of work not concieved on their own, could be so flippant and easy going with their creations.

Some of us, thumbnail, sketch, concept, construct, create textures, breathe life into with scripts and strive to create unique, amazing items never before seen in SL. We CARE about our creations and where they end up, and we CARE that they are looked upon as TOP KNOTCH. We also appreciate other creators who are also innovative and creative and unique, mod/copy or not...

The octopus table was fine the way it was. No copy, no mod... NO PROBLEM.

You want a 'business'? Sell items that are ripoffs of RL items.. just replicate everything and sell them as your own, and think you are contributing to SL..

No wonder some can have 1000's of dresses and shoes in their stores - THEY'RE NOT THEIRS, and since the designs really aren't there, they can let their meshes go, to be bastardized and reused - then come and decry unique creators because they market differently (and aren't always about the freaking $$$$$$$$$$$$ all the time)...

the $$$$$$$$$$. God I hate the $$$$$$$$$$$$$. It's always about the $$$$$$$$$$ to many isn't it?

But guess what? Some of us must really piss you off, some of us original types.. Cuz guess what, we make money too.. In the end we win because we create the things YOU'll copy later. Chew on that. Slow and steady and unique wins the race.

(Okay rant over: responses below)

---

Penny Patton wrote:

There are content creators who sell furniture no-mod because they want you to have to buy multiple copies if you want to place more than one copy of that furniture on your land.

Yes, you're free to pass on shopping with them at all, and I would encourage people to do so, but that is the intent of the seller.

 

---

Once again you ignored other reasons, not one was ever presented the desire to make customers buy multiple copies. I can safely say you don't read (or probably can't comprehend) and too eager to condescendingly respond and assume a poster's temperament instead of arguing points instead.

There was a legitimate, marketing strategy (with examples) I posted as to why a merchant may want no mod on an item, where is your response to this? All you did is repost your opinion again, without addressing other points made.

---

Gadget Portal wrote:

You're getting awfully riled up over something that you're saying doesn't concern you.

Why are you so upset about Penny educating people with correct information? If you're afraid it's going to hurt your business model, maybe you need a new business model.

---

Personal attack on Riley. Doesn't address any points he/she made.

---

HarrisonMcKenzie wrote:

You are aware that disagreeing with someone and getting upset are two different things, right?

Adding modify permissions adds nothing to my business. All it means is turning over my rights as an artist.

I don't want to do that so I don't. And as far as I can tell, the entire kid clothing market also sells with no-mod, so the argument that my business will hurt if someone else sells with those permissions isn't a valid one. I made my informed choice. Voicing that choice in a discussion isn't me getting upset, nor am I afraid that my business will suffer. That's you getting upset over my choice, not be being upset over it.

---

That's exactly what the hell is being proposed. Penny wants the ability to purchase your original sketched, concepted, constructed and textured mesh for a free end-use, including retexturing and renaming, adding to her own custom builds on her sim so she can make money from it. That is not the reason I started creating in SL, it was for my fellow and average SL'ers to use on their own lands and enjoy, and they  make stuff for me to enjoy. Read her blog to see what end use she would have for YOUR creations.

She also hasn't addressed any points made about why creators should bother spending so much time on textures, materials, or even design if the end use would amount to retexturing, recoloring, rescripting, deconstruction/reconstruction/spare parts..

Why are any of us even uploading anything other than a UV unwrapped white mesh then?

---

You obviously consider yourself an artist first instead of a businessperson. Essentially, you just confirmed what I said. Thank you!

Harrison has similar (albeit less febrile and overblown) reasoning, but he kept referring to his "business" which is why I mentioned the separation.

[Paul Hexem]

You're seeing the same thing as me.

They want to sell something to you, but don't want you to use it once you have it unless you're going to use it in exactly precisely the way they envisioned.

No wonder their sales are hurting.

[Codex Alpha]

---

Gadget Portal wrote:

You're getting awfully salty about this whole thing.

It's like I said... If it's that upsetting to lose sales because people are learning the truth, maybe there's something wrong with your business model.

And if you're not losing sales, and selling no mod is working fine for you, then why all the crying?

---

NOTE: You're a self-identified troll by your avatar, so this response is not necessarily to you (who wants attention by making frequent inciteful comments and accusations), but to anyone who reads this, -for the sake of discussion and clarity.

This isn't about me, I'm discussing a topic here. Do you have the intellect to understand that a person can discuss a topic without having to have a personal belief or investment in it?

Or hold no animosity at the end of the day for an individual, just because that individual does things different from you?

This is how people learn more about things.. they discuss with others that have counter views to their own, so that they can see another, and learn from another view. Even if I present a view with vigor and determination, doesn't mean I can't or won't change my position with new information, or perhaps a view I hadn't considered in the past.

The only ones who get salty, upset, or resort to attacking the person, behind the post are the ones who do not understand this.

Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people.

 

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

You obviously consider yourself an artist

first

instead of a businessperson. Essentially, you just confirmed what I said. Thank you!

---

I am an artist first, AND a businessperson. In my posts, I have stated that SL is firstly a creative outlet for me, secondly I make a few things to support my activities and uploads into SL, thirdly learning to work in 3D to make creations come to life, and SL is my main sharing ground. Currently it's a small business, and it's profitable. Right now, I re-invest earnings back into more learning and tools, and into the day to day dealings in SL.

My goals are also not just in SL, but in other avenues. If the SL business grows, that's great, but no, it isn't my foremost goal, and for many it shouldn't be. It changes them, corrupts them, makes them overly anxious and hostile, competitive, and therefore threatened at times by countering opinion. This creates elitism and some of the statements made on these forums can reflect that.

Also, don't mix my opinions with my end actions, as I discuss topics with a razor's edge or appearance of stubbornness, but I always take countering opinions into consideration. I just fight hard for a position at the time, and ask for fair and well-thought out counter-responses. (I'm actually trying to help the person convince me of their position).

But no, if I wanted to make a business, and have less fun at it, I would just produce the average things that everyone wants, pay more attention to top selling products, and learn/make them, etc.. it IS a different mindset.

However, I think this point is a little off the topic, because it should be about WHY or WHY NOT to have certain permissions, and whether or not the average consumer should boycott those who do not provide it (I gave reasons why some may not want to - still not responded to), and the general nastiness of posters stating that merchants who dont give carte blanche to users to modify their works are 'anti-consumerist', etc.  I see a lot of repeating opinions, but no real supporting statements behind them.

 

[Penny Patton]

---

entity0x wrote:

That's exactly what the hell is being proposed. Penny wants the ability to purchase your original sketched, concepted, constructed and textured mesh for a free end-use, including retexturing and renaming, adding to her own custom builds on her sim so she can make money from it. 

---

What?

First, there is nothing sinister about retexturing and renaming content. If you believe there is, I don't know what to say to you.

I'm really not sure what i meant by "so she can make money from it". The only land I have in SL right now is my personal home, which is not open to the public. It's just a place for me and friends to hang out. Just what are you insinuating?

---

entity0x wrote:

She also hasn't addressed any points made about why creators should bother spending so much time on textures, materials, or even design if the end use would amount to retexturing, recoloring, rescripting, deconstruction/reconstruction/spare parts..

Why are any of us even uploading anything other than a UV unwrapped white mesh then?

---

Look, giving people mod perms doesn't mean you're no longer creating content people want to use as-is, or that the changes they make will turn it into an entirely different item bearing no resemblance to the original.

I also want to address this idea that selling no-mod somehow makes you an artist with integrity, creating unique beauty in the world, while those who sell moddable content are somehow lesser artists, or greedy business people just in it for the money. That's just ridiculous. I've been selling moddable content in SL since 2005. I'm just as much an artist as anyone else and take great pride in my work. I create content I want to use, and put a lot of effort into improving my craft. We just have different feelings about how others interact with our art.

I've said again and again that there are certain instances were no-mod makes sense, and that different creators have different ambitions and goals for their content in SL.

You want to sell art pieces in SL which should only be used as you, the creator, intended. Fair play to you, go for it. I have my opinions about that of course, but I doubt I'd change your mind and you're free to sell how you please. Since the beginning I have been addressing more practical, yet flawed, reasons given for selling no-mod. Specific reasoning that I've done my best to clearly identify and examine so the community can have an honest, open discussion about them. 

 However, your most recent comments do suggest that you do believe making content moddable somehow opens them up to some sort of content theivery, so maybe you're not being entirely honest  when you say you sell no-mod purely for personal, artistic reasons and you do worry about some nebulous spectre of content theft. If that's the case I'd be happy to discuss that with you and we could start with the your comment I quoted at the beginning of this post. Just what is it, specifically, that you believe I'm proposing?